The problem with intellectuals is that they are stuck on themselves. Did you read any of this? Just read the first lines of each section and you will understand what I mean. They just love to hear themselves talk! They say a lot of words to say very little. A scientific paper should be about the issues. Number them and label the issue first! 1. Curve 2. Angel of suns rays, 3. Horizon, 4. 200 proofs of a FE !!! Then a paper might get my interest! Otherwise this is just an exercise in blah blah blah self worship! A real person wants to keep it simple for the sake of being understood. hey Guys, It is not about YOU !!! Get off your high horses and speak truth. Truth is plain and simple! And if anyone wants to take me on and even hints that I don't understand any of this and that is why I am writing this then BRING IT !

"Read the book entitled the Book of Christians, an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus, It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are: that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the latter a rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My dear, I am far from sure Photius was even eventually a saint, and at least he witnesses to the fact this was believed by others.

He does NOT cite his own belief as to what exactly moves stars and heavenly bodies, and I am anyway placing St Thomas Aquinas above him, at least intellectually.

He can of course have died in peace with the Pope.

Citing myself:

"If someone knows of some Byzantine cleric who disappeared from history before he died, I am not sure the Beowulf poet in England can be excluded from being that person later in life."

Thomas Aquinas was a part of the schism of the Latin West, and taught multiple heresies, which is why Orthodox Christians do not accept him, nor his errors.

Saint Photius is a great saint, one of the three pillars of Orthodoxy.

Which Pope specifically are you referring to when you say that St, Photius "died in peace with the pope"?

Many heresies find their origin in pre-Christian pagan philosophy. There is nothing new under the sun,

Just because Cosmas Indicopleustes, who has never been recognized as any kind of authority by anyone in the Church, taught the absurdity that angels move planets doesn't prove that it is a traditional teaching of the Church.

Where are all the Patristic witnesses testifying that angels are charge with the task of moving celestial bodies? Please cite them.

Cosmas also taught a flat earth, which none of the Holy Fathers ever taught. Do you accept his teaching on that as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Thomas Aquinas was a part of the schism of the Latin West,"

If there was truly a schism, and people like you tend to give me the impression there was and is, the perpretrator was called Caerularius.

"and taught multiple heresies"

Taught no heresies.

"which is why Orthodox Christians do not accept him, nor his errors."

"which is why" Photian Heretics "do not accept him, nor his errors", as they pretend.

"Saint Photius is a great saint, one of the three pillars of Orthodoxy."

Whether he be a saint or not does not depend on how Photian Heretics class him.

"Which Pope specifically are you referring to when you say that St, Photius "died in peace with the pope"?"

I did not say that he did, I said it was possible he did. And the Pope I referred to was whoever was Pope when he died.

"Many heresies find their origin in pre-Christian pagan philosophy. There is nothing new under the sun"

Certainly, but more so in pagan superstitions. Plus the false philosophies Epicureanism and Stoicism which St Thomas Aquinas rejected.

"Just because Cosmas Indicopleustes, who has never been recognized as any kind of authority by anyone in the Church, taught the absurdity that angels move planets doesn't prove that it is a traditional teaching of the Church."

Cosmas was not a Catholic, but a Nestorian, I have heard.

He testifies the teaching existed previous to whoever rejected him.

"Where are all the Patristic witnesses testifying that angels are charge with the task of moving celestial bodies? Please cite them."

As far as I know the Fathers of the First Millennium (not accepting your Photius as such) did not bother to explain celestial bodies in greater detail than was necessary to prove compatibility of known scientific fact and Holy Writ.

However, this cuts both ways: you have no fathers testifying to opposite either, not even directly St John of Damascus.

St John of Damascus does however say angels and demons are both in all of our affairs.

And sun and tides do belong to our affairs, which gives a presumption of angelic intervention at least for sun and moon.

Also, Photius plays the fastidious who likes to throw things off, he does not bother to explain in any kind of argument with any kind of detail. He says he thinks "x" absurd, but does not say what "y" is not absurd.

St Thomas however does explain things.

Can we presume Photius had never given cosmology any serious thought, but only scoffed at what he found scoffable?

Or shall we presume instead he believed not only outermost Heaven moved by God himself (as with St Thomas and as with St John of Damascus), but every sphere inside that of fixed stars simply just mechanically moved by the one outside it? If so, Tycho proved him wrong by observing a comet. Solid spheres are out now.

"Cosmas also taught a flat earth, which none of the Holy Fathers ever taught. Do you accept his teaching on that as well?"

I do not accept Cosmas as a teacher, but simply as a witness to what beliefs where somehow somewhere current.

If the Occident and Byzantium were clearly mostly round earth, it was never condemned to accept a flat earth.

If the Latin West and Byzantium had monarchs holding an "orbis cruciger", this was not perhaps so among all Christians living in patriarchies of Antioch or Alexandria. Can you cite any who did?

Because, the fact is that the flat earth fathers at least some have supposed to exist, are insofar valuable as they did not share the idea of solid spheres, and thus we have no Patristic unanimity for them, and thus it is not a heresy to deny solid spheres with Tycho and more recent astronomers.

But your final words show how strange and Barbarian the "Orthodox" are to us of the West.

"Do you ACCEPT HIS TEACHING on that as well?"

[My added emphasis with block letters]

1) I am not "accepting teachings" except insofar as I am with St Thomas Aquinas.

2) Even if I were not accepting the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas, had never heard of it, the idea of angels moving stars, comets and planets, iuncluding Sun and Moon makes sense to me.

3) I am accepting the words of Cosmas as evidence, not as a teaching, but as evidence that the idea made sense to others as well.

4) But YOU seem to ask "is he accepting the teaching of someone or is he a heretic, because he thinks for himself" - even if there is no Church decision against what I think.

5) YOU seem to ask "if he is accepting a teaching, is he a follower of Cosmas Indocopleustes?"

To YOU, philosophic debate is dead. And yet, the Mystagogy of your own Photius, refuted in kind by Sts Anselm and Thomas, depends too much on it for you to safely ignore it.

Not sure which year, not sure which monastery - my theory could be correct. At least by 897, ten years and some months after his forced resignation, he could have mastered Anglo-Saxon. If the monastery was closer to Yarrow than to Athos, or if he had contact with English Varingiar.

Note on doctrinal content of Mystagogy

The "ek tou Patri all' oukhi ek tou Hyiou" (or however he worded it, quotation marks here are not meant as indicating exact quote with exact currently checked reference) contradicts Pope and Church Father St Leo I, the Great, whose day it was about a month ago. As well as a few others.

Note on above quote from Bibliotheca

I feel very dubious about editors' view that the item 36 of Bibliotheca is really Cosmas Indocopleustes.

Photius described the item as:

the book entitled the Book of Christians,

Not matched by "Christian topography".

an interpretation of the Octateuch.

Not matched by content description of Christian Topography, according to which we are dealing with a geographical work, while the one discussed by Photius was exegetic.

The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus,

Cosmas was hardly anonymous to Photius? Reign or Justin matches, but I don't know if Cosmas also dedicated his work to any Pamphilus. If he did, it may have been someone it was customary to dedicate books too.

Virgil and Horace are not identic, just because both dedicated books to Maecenas.

It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures.

If Cosmas, as I recall, was Nestorian, thus heterodox, Photius would hardly have described that work as defending certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from Scriptures.

Also, I have not heard Topography had apologetic content over and above the in fact erroneous one for flat earth.